Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Tyrell Johnson, Glenn Dorsey, Chris Long, Brian Brohm, Matt Ryan, and several other articles
Status	new
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Chrisjnelson, Yankees10, 72.0.36.36, CopaceticThought, RC-0722, Cgarz89, 67.137.0.28, Tromboneguy0186, Blackngold29, Star QB, Jayron32

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab new cases|Tyrell Johnson, Glenn Dorsey, Chris Long, Brian Brohm, Matt Ryan, and several other articles]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|Tyrell Johnson, Glenn Dorsey, Chris Long, Brian Brohm, Matt Ryan, and several other articles]]

Request details

Who are the involved parties?

Chrisjnelson, Yankees10, 72.0.36.36, CopaceticThought, RC-0722, Cgarz89, 67.137.0.28, Tromboneguy0186, Blackngold29, Star QB, Jayron32

What's going on?

You can see prior discussion on it here:

• Talk:Glenn Dorsey#Originally
• Talk:Chris_Long (American football)#"Originally drafted?"
• User Talk:Yankees10#Originally drafted
• User Talk:Chrisjnelson#Originally
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Drafted or Originally Drafted

Additional info, related issue

• User talk:72.0.36.36#Chris Long

There are a couple of users (User:Yankees10 and User:Chrisjnelson) who have decided in the interest of uniformity to change every NFL player's article from saying "was drafted by..." to "was originally drafted by..." Their intent was to convey that this is where the player's career began. Often when a player moves to another team their article says they "originally came from such and such team and now are at another team". To make all the articles consistent they decided to make every single article say "originally" in them, even the ones who haven't moved to another team.

Since adding "originally" to every page they've they've been reverted many times. Using the word originally implies they have been drafted more than once, when in fact they have not. Or it may imply they've moved on to another team, where in fact many of them have not. Several users feel putting "originally" into an article where it doesn't make sense is wrong and sounds goofy, others have pointed out that it's bad grammar.

There has been discussions on both of their user pages about it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Yankees10#Originally_drafted and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chrisjnelson#Originally. This argument has potential to spiral out of control (they've put so much work into changing all the articles that at this point they wouldn't admit they were wrong even if they knew they are) so it would be nice to get mediator involvement.

What would you like to change about that?

I would like to get a third party mediator opinion on whether or not we should:

• add "originally drafted" to every professional player's page (even the ones who haven't moved to another team) in the interest of consistency at the expense of proper grammar and fluidity
• add "originally drafted" to only those players who have moved to another team at the expense of consistency
• add "originally drafted" sparingly and only where it makes sense and revert those articles where they do not make sense
• do not add "originally" on any of the articles

Mediator notes

Administrative notes

Discussion

They've gotten into editing wars over this, which is not uncommon for these two users. Chrisjnelson has been blocked 17 times for edit warring over the last year and Yankees10 was just blocked last week. So instead of seeing this spiral out of control I thought we should get mediator involvement. If the mediator agrees we should add "originally" to every article then the edit warring could end. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, who's the "we"? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 00:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At User talk:Chrisjnelson#Originally you had said "Hmm. I think the leads should have the word originally to keep traded and nono-traded player pages uniform" 67.137.0.28 (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care for this use of "originally," but I'm not losing any sleep about it. I don't plan to come here again. Was I named simply because I started the section on the Chris Long talk page? Tromboneguy0186 (talk) 01:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Using the word originally implies they have been drafted more than once..."

This is completely false. It does not imply they have been drafted more than once - it implies it's when their career began.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is true72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "He was originally drafted by the Chiefs in 2007." The emphasis should not be on the team, and if it is then yes, it does sound as if he's not there anymore. The emphasis should be on "originally" as in "Player X is a current player for the Chiefs, and he was originally drafted by them in 2008."►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It simply does not convey a message that you say it conveys, it implies a player played for more than one team.72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to continue to argue that because it's untrue. It's not my job to define words for people.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is your occupation doesn't mean you are good at it, or that you have the final say. Blackngold29 01:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna have to go with Chrisjnelson and Yankees10 on this one. The word "Originally" should stay/be added. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 01:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Over on the WP:NFL discussion page this point was posed by Jayron32, I feel it is the best argument presented so far, on either side: "The word "originally" is an adverb that modifies the verb "drafted". When there is only one draft that is relevent, why does it need to be modified? What two different drafts do we need to differentiate in order to use a modifier like the adverb "orginally"? " I see this whole debate as an argument over what is correct english, and this statement sums up proper english perfectly. I feel the word 'originally' should not be included for this reason. Blackngold29 01:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RC-0722, do you mean that this word should remain with all players, or simply with players who have changed teams? CopaceticThought (talk) 06:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron was wrong. There sentence is completely correct, and of that I am sure. So that clearly wasn't the best argument. In fact, one could argue it was the worst since it was totally false.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 07:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is about more than "origianally"

There are several issues, I have an issue with how ChrisJNelson and Yankees10 treat others. They assume their way is the only. Theyu laced my talk page with profanities, definitively decaling that their way was right and mine was worthy of slamming. I only make good-faith edits to wiki. Regardless, I agree that originally applied to a player who is still with his team is not the best way to handle that.72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not about more than that. That's what this page is for.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to think your behavior in this issue is worthy of being looked into. I was brought in on this, I have a right to express my opinion about have you act and how you judge others' good-faith edits, and other things.72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know what you are talking about I dont treat users bad, how can you assume this from one instance. Also I was the one that left profanities on your talk page, which I agree was a little bit overboard, but I was frustrated about how you have a control issue over the Chris Long (American football) article, so dont blame Chris with leaving profanity--Yankees10 02:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have control issues with any article. I have made good faith edits on Long, Slater, and others. I edited them with the intent on making them better. That's all. For some reason it is yourself and ChisNelson who seem to take ownership over not only Long and Slater, but many other NFL articles. It seems anyhting that is independent is rejected and then reverted by you and ChrisJNelson. Then comes the problems. It seems to me that it is you and ChrisNelson who are having control issues and then vent your frustrations by trashing others. I happen to think you and Chris do some very good work, however, like anyonem you guys are not perfect . . . so when I think there is a chance to improve an article I do. You and Nelson not only criticized the placing of good-faith edits, you criticized the contents. I showed you the 5 pillars of wikipedia . . .you seemed to not comply with them . . . therefore, I am glad this is coming to light. I just don't think a few people should ctonrol all the NFL articles and then get your way by just wearing out people with your reverts. Most people just give up to yours and Nelson's bullying tactics. Part of what I call "bullying tactics" is using profanity to intimidate me. When you call names and say what I post is irrelevant does not make it so, and what you are doing is trying to get things dome your own way. Look both you and Nelson are very young . . . mistakes are easily worlked out but then there is a pattern and practice of profanity and expressing yourselvs in such a juvinile way, it ruins wikiepedia for good-faith editors like me. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I tried changing it and was simply told by Yankees10 "Too bad, that's how it is." I asked for a specific link to a Wikipedia style guide and received none. I'm also not losing any sleep over this, though. CopaceticThought (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say "too bad"--Yankees10 02:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind I found it--Yankees10 02:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have never given that as my reason, and I certainly don't think Yankees10 should be arguing for it for only that reason. "Because that's the way it is" is not a reason at all. I do it because I think consistency is good for this part of NFL player articles and it does in fact make complete sense. I think it's written perfectly the way it is, and that's why I do it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To tell you the truth I thought this was something agreed to on WP:NFL, thats why I said too bad thats how it is done, I didnt even know Chris made it--Yankees10 02:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to bully anyone by using profanity. If you could be bullied by profanity you'd be pretty lame anyway. I use profanity to express how I'm feeling at the moment. Like if I'm fucking pissed, I'm not going to say I'm pissed. I'm going to say I'm fucking pissed. There's a difference. And dude, I can't help it if your good-faith edits are horrible. Chris Long's and Matt Slater's moms in the leads? Give me a freaking break. That is without logic, and I will continue to get rid of crap like that for the good of the articles.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. However, your position of

"I will continue to get rid of crap like that for the good of the articles"

is really the heart of the matter. Why are you the one who decides what is good or bad? What if someone thinks you are the one who ruins articles with disinformation, like the way you condense All-Pro and All-America selections. No matter how many times you condesne them cannot make it right. However, I digress, the issue is you who may have WP:OWN issues and WP:CIVIL issues and other issues with the rules here. This is not a dictatorship run by you, I don't think, and I don't think you should be able to abuse others so easily, it is bad for wiki and it is not fair to the rest of the good-gaith editors here. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using my common sense. I see a piece of an article I think sucks (and have good reason for) so I'm going to remove it. The end.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have that same right? If I think what you do is incorrect can I just "remove it"? I don't think so. What if your "common sense" is incorrect or if you happen to have a bias? What then? 72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not incorrect and I'm not biased. So no issue there.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I simply posed the question, what if? What is there were a time when you WERE biased, what then? Can that never happen? Are you always right? Your answer makes my point perfectly. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am always objective. I don't give a shit about Chris Long, his mother or the Rams. I have nothing against them and no allegiance too them. But I know what's notable and I know his mom isn't at all, so I'm going to remove it until the end of time because it's irrelevant crap and makes the article amateurish and worse overall.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is you who should be removed to the end of time. You are judging contnet which is against the spitir of the 5 pillars of wikipedia, isn't it? I think you might consider reviewing the good-faith edit section.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, do you think this Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility "*Using derogatory language towards other contributors" applies to you?72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or this? Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility "*Rudeness, profanity directed at another contributor, or indecent suggestions." Does this apply to you in your opinion? 72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crickets.72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good effort, but crickets is like this: (crickets) RC-0722 ^247.5/1 01:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dang. I'll get it next time. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still wish ChrisJNelson would answer the questions.72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which questions?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 07:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, (1) do you think this rule: Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility "*Using derogatory language towards other contributors" applies to you? and (2) do you think this rule Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility "*Rudeness, profanity directed at another contributor, or indecent suggestions." Does these rules apply to you in your opinion? 72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well they apply to everyone. But I disagree in large part about what is considered "uncivil" here, so I'm not going to blindly adhere to the rules on it. I'm going to do what I believe should be acceptable, and deal with the consequences later.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's the problem. What is acceptable to you may not be acceptable to others. As long as you set your own standard like that you are de facto saying the rules don't apply to you. I think your answer is very illuminating. I hope it is considered by the Admins.72.0.36.36 (talk) 15:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considered for what? The fuck I cuss more than some is irrelevant in the "originally" discussion.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was posted above:

They've gotten into editing wars over this, which is not uncommon for these two users. Chrisjnelson has been blocked 17 times for edit warring over the last year and Yankees10 was just blocked last week.

If this is true, why does Nelson get to continue to behave is ways that any objective observer would call uncivil? WP:CIVIL. It can be seen here that even is discussions where Admins are looking at a specific issue that he still attacks other's. I don't quite understand (and I am willing to learn) why this guy is not banned forever. What does one have to do to be banned permanately? If being banned 17 times (if that is true, I don't know if it is) does not tell you the character of an editor what will? How long does he get to stay? 18 times? 20 times banned?. I was threatend to be blocked because of 1 incident. An Admin named Pats1 threatend with with banishment in no uncertain terms. How that is relevant is it is my view, my opinion based on belief and what I have seen is that Pats1 acts as the "muscle" for chrisjnelson. I saw it in my own case. What I would like most is a fair, civil discussion when there are disputes and that the rules of wikipedia are allpied to all, both those with an account and those who choose not to have one for personal reasons. If one can get his way through sheer force of will and wearing out others then what good are the rules? I say a nelson suspension for a long time should be looked into given his history and his current behavior, even in this thread. it just looks pretty bad.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pats1 isn't my "muscle" but if I need help and I'm right, he'll help out because he's a smart and logical guy.

And I really don't feel like I've been blocked 17 times purely for edit warring. There's no way.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you "feel" is not a really good standard. If you've been banned 1 or 2 or 3 for edit warring, it says a lot. Maybe the 17 is a total number, I don't know, my point is if you've been banned numerous times, it says a lot about civility. So does your attitude and your negativity and your profanity. It is just not needed in my opinion and is not civil. Besides, I just want to know why a guy can be banned as many times as you (whatever the number is) can stay here. I asked the Admins what are the standards? Admins? I think I have asked a fair question. If there is a better forum, fine, but this seems to work, eveyone is here . . . let's just get these issues out on the table and let everyone have their say, makes sense to me.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His block log can be seen here but let's keep this on topic. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 04:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. However, if the record of behavior of the parties involved is relevant (and I think it may be) then I think the Admins should take that into consideration. Wow. That's a long list. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the point, I happen to agree that the originally drafted makes little sense and I posted that concern with nelson and yankees10 (I think) I just said it does not make sense if a player has never changed teams. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all - No, admins should not take my past into consideration here. While you've failed to grasp it thus far, this page is about the phrasing of a sentence and nothing more. My past is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if I eat babies in my spare time, the only thing that matters on this page is the topic at hand - nothing more. If you want to whine about me, do it elsewhere.

Secondly, there is a major difference between thinking something doesn't make sense and it actually being untrue. Considering is complete does make sense, the problem appears to be with you and not the sentence. So good luck with that.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. the user who started this was wise, starting this instead of allowing an edit war. It preempts what you would have done, which is this: He makes a change, you would follow him around and revert everything. Then, if he made a complaint, then the Admins might even blame HIM, because he does not have a user ID. I've seen this. I've stated I want the rules to apply to everyone, fairly. But, if they ignore your uncivil behavior (which they won't ignore, I don't think) then the WP:CIVIL rules don't apply to you. That would be unfair. So, in this case, I think your behavior matters----when that bahvior is posted in wikipedia. What you do in your personal life does not matter. What do you do here is supposed to matter, Wiki is not a right . . . is is a privilege that comes with a certain code of conduct. If you violate that code of conduct, then you should be subject to a penalty. Same as me, same as everyone. Isn't that fair?72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]